May 17, 2022
2022 SKQB 129

The claim alleges that the plaintiff was sexually harassed and assaulted in the workplace.  In dismissing the requests for a sealing order, the Court was not satisfied that sealing of the court file was necessary to prevent serious risk to the Applicant’s privacy interests.

The Court

The privacy interests of a person who makes an allegation of sexual assault or sexual harassment in a civil action are high…therefore the first part of the Sherman Estate test were met.

However, the order was not necessary to prevent the risk to the identified interest because:

1. 1. The proposed measure – a sealing order – would not be effective in preventing the stated risk (which was that the medical community was small and gossip spreads).
   2. The Court noted that, given that the court proceedings were still presumptively open, the action would be heard in public and the information would be revealed;
   3. Other reasonable measures could mitigate against the risk.
   4. The interest in freedom of the press outweighed the risk to the individual’s privacy interest in this case.

The request to anonymize by initials was also rejected because there was a less intrusive remedy available, namely a judge can simply anonymize decisions.  It was unnecessary to anonymize all court pleadings.